They were incidents across town. This guy was hours ahead of Sky/BBC The West Londoner
UK Riots (with the exception of Manchester which has its own thread)
- Thread starter CLK_FPC
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I gues it depends if he was pointing the gun at them or not. All speculation anyway, best wait for all the details to come out.
I don't understand it at all. Society has gone to shit!
its not reaction to the guy getting shot, its organised criminality exploiting the situation. The police should get in there and bust heads
Hardly a modern phenomenon.
So how fecked is London right now? I'm supposed to be travelling through today to go visit family, any chance of being caught up in this shit?
more than likely, its spreading
check facebook
Sure is.
You don't have to have been shot at before you can open fire.
Depends on the circumstances of course as the investigation will reveal. If he was deemed a threat, bearing in mind we already know he had a gun in a public place and was subject to a Police investigation, there is every chance he will have been shot without having fired himself.
Anyway, enough of me speculating. Just irritating when people go "Gasp Ohhh he didn't shoot first. The bastards".
Makes little difference. Try making that decision when someone has a gun potentially pointed at you.
Well it clearly matters doesn't it. He might have had his hands in the air for all we know, or he could have pointed the gun and screamed at the officer, we don't know, it's pointless trying to paint a picture either way. One thing is for sure, it certainly matters.
In your scenario, you are saying it doesn't matter if say the gun was on the floor, it wasn't loaded, and he was giving himself up, yet was still shot and killed because he possessed a firearm.
Of course it's very unlikely that happened, but why would you say that it doesn't matter at all if there was potentially another way it went down, which didn't involve him directly threatening the police?
You're also saying that regardless of what happened, he was going to get shot anyway, because he had a firearm?
Oh feck sakes
where in london are you going to?
best to wait for the facts
Getting into Kings Cross then getting tubes from there to Paddington.
That's clearly not what he was trying to say. Basically making the point that there are lots of people out there making it sound like the police only have the right to shoot someone if they are being shot at themselves. Which is nonsense.
should be fine i would expect, however its hard to tell if things are going to spread tonight or if thats it done now
Hmmm truee...I don't think I'm gonna risk it tbh. Especially as there's gonna be a couple of young'uns with us.
Isn't central London pretty much as usual? From what I gather as long as you avoid the the outer areas of London, and especially during the day, you should be fine, no?
Are tubes etc still running to the likes of Brixton and Tottenham Hale?
Are tubes etc still running to the likes of Brixton and Tottenham Hale?
put it this way mate, where kings cross is located is close enough to kentish town and camden which is where there may be rumoured violence tonight, now while i personally think that it could stay north and now go near kings cross itself it may not be with the risk if you have kids, I'm working nights this week and if i have a flat to come home to each morning i will be quite happy at the moment
no brixton is closed, not sure about tottenham hale, most of central is fine but i think there was a small outbreak on oxford street last night. nothing significant though however i think the greater concern is not where has been hit now but where could be next
Obviously it's not, but it highlights the pointlessness of making generic statements, when we don't have a clue how the situation went down. He may have been co-operating, or he could have been problematic, we don't know.
And likewise, while it's ridiculous to think police should only take action when they have a bullet fired at them, it's equally ridiculous to say it doesn't matter at all if he shot his weapon or not. Of course it does.
Cheers for the info mate. I hope everything's works out okay for you, must be a nightmare to live there at the moment.
The presenter on at the moment is such an ignorant middle class wanker.
It would have been a lot worse in the 1500s. This would have turned into a full fledged riot, with death-tolls in the hundreds if not thousands.
So technically, society has gone from shit to less shit.
yeah its okay where i am at the moment, seems normal but considering that it started in south london last night i am a bit apprehensive at the moment. its nice and peaceful here but i hope if it does kick off that it will stay confined to the high street and away from residential areas and such
My notion now is that if you're not at college in education, or undertaking an apprenticeship, or indeed lucky enough to have found work - national service should be introduced. It would help young, disillusioned men (and women) understand a little more about the world and teach them the discipline they need that you simply cannot take what you want in society.
Let the drill Sergeants sort them out and teach the ways of the world.
Let the drill Sergeants sort them out and teach the ways of the world.
If this was facebook I would have liked this comment
Have to say, I have very little pity for someone carrying a gun who gets shot by police, unless he's in custody and they then shoot him.
Why should the police, who are basically just guys doing their job, have to take a chance that someone carrying a gun isn't going to use it? How are they supposed to know if its not loaded? If he's giving himself up he can throw it away, not keep holding it.
Sorry but if I was a policeman facing someone who had a gun, I'd assume my life was at risk.
From their perspective if criminals have a problem being shot when carrying guns, its pretty simple, don't carry a gun.
I always thought if you were carrying a fire-arm it was pretty much the Police's duty to arrest you, failing that, shoot you.
In fairness, I haven't a clue if he had a gun, but if he was in possession then it's really enough reason for me.
In fairness, I haven't a clue if he had a gun, but if he was in possession then it's really enough reason for me.
Dont agree with that at all, if you're carrying a gun you're taking your chances aren't you?
You want to wait til he fires a shot before he's shot? What if that one shot he's allowed to have kills someone?
Don't let Dwayne see you say that...
the guy was carrying a firearm, regardless of whether he fired a shot if police deemed it to be necessary force then that is more than good enough for me, carry a gun and you take your chances, end of really
Dwayne would be the exception, I hear he couldn't hit a barn door at 10 paces, you could just walk up and take it off him.I've been around guns all my life and used them since I was 8 years old.
Respect for firearms is drilled into you and there are very strict rules in the shooting community with regards to etiquette and safety.
Anyone who thinks someone carrying a gun should be allowed take a shot before they're dealt with or that people carrying guns should be shot to 'injure' has no idea how dangerous they are and IMO watches too much TV.
I have to disagree with that. Unless the someone is being threatening to the police or the public then the police should not have reason to use their firearms.
Being in possession (or being suspected to be in possession) is not enough to be shot in and of itself. (And that's obviously before we get on to the issues with replicas.)
You dont think being in possession of a gun is threatening?
Why do you think people are carrying them?
As for replicas, again 2 questions here:
1. Why would someone be carrying a replica? Whats their aim? Pretty stupid fashion accessory.
2. How easy do you think it is to tell if something is a replica at distance or in the heat of the moment.
Are you saying if you were in their shoes and you were facing a guy carrying a gun you'd wait til he fired a shot at you so you could make sure he was serious and that it was real?
If so, good for you, I dont think the police should have to do that.
Bottom line is if you dont want to get shot dont carry guns, loaded, not loaded, pointed at someone, not pointed at someone, real or replica.
No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that police should only open fire if the person is being threatening, i.e. removing their gun from its holster or storage, or attempting to do so. The police can't just say, 'hang on I spotted that guy has a gun tucked in his belt' and then shoot him in the back of the head.
Basically the police should have reasonable suspicion that the suspect intends to use his weapon before they can use theirs. They don't have to actually be fired at.
pretty sure thats not what happened from the police point of view.
I'm not claiming it did in this case. I'm saying that it's not true to say 'carrying a gun is reason enough'. It isn't.